Paragon Asra Housing Limited (202332807)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202332807

Paragon Asra Housing Limited

16 July 2025


Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of several repairs to the property.
  2. We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident has been an assured tenant of the landlord since 1993. The property is a 2 bedroom flat.
  2. Across July and August 2023 the resident reported issues with her bathroom sink, toilet and a radiator.
  3. The resident made a formal complaint to the landlord on 2 October 2023. She said that the noise from the toilet and the radiator leak had not been fixed. She also raised concerns about lack of contact from the landlord and the poor attendance rate of its contractors.
  4. On 17 October 2023 the landlord issued its stage 1 response. The landlord upheld the complaint and apologised for the delays and lack of communication. It offered £150 compensation for the delays to the repairs to the sink, radiator and toilet.
  5. On 7 November 2023 the resident requested to escalate her complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s process, as issues were ongoing. On 17 November 2023, she further reported the stopcock had been fixed but the sink was outstanding.
  6. On 2 January 2024 the landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response. It apologised for the delays and missed appointments. It advised how it would improve its service and communication. It offered £280 compensation in total, broken down into £50 for missed appointments, £200 for delays, and £30 for delays in issuing its stage 2 response.
  7. On 2 February 2024 the resident said to the landlord that its stage 2 response had not addressed the mental anguish that she had suffered and she did not have confidence this would not happen again.
  8. When the resident approached us in March 2023, she said the repairs had been completed, but she wanted the landlord to revise its compensation offer and review how it handled repairs. She was also dissatisfied with the standard of work for the stopcock.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. We are aware that the resident raised concerns following the landlord’s complaint process about a standard of the repair to the stopcock which had caused damage to the wall as mice may enter the property. While the resident raised these concerns, they have not been formally raised as a complaint to the landlord. We have therefore not fully assessed the landlord’s actions in this respect. The landlord must first be given the chance to investigate and respond to this issue before we get involved. The resident may wish to raise a formal complaint with the landlord if she wishes to pursue her concerns further. If she remains dissatisfied with the landlord’s final response, she may then refer the new complaint to us for consideration.

The landlord’s handling of repairs

  1. The landlord has not supplied us a copy of a repair policy, although its website refers to its repair responsibilities. The website says for non-emergency repairs it aims to complete these within 15 working days, where some repairs may need more than one attendance. These types of repairs include blocked sinks, defective cistern, heating faults, minor plumbing repairs and leaking taps.
  2. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response did acknowledge multiple attendances without the repair issues being resolved, delays, and poor communication. It also offered compensation for these failures, which was appropriate. However, it did not seek to learn from its failures or take enough action to put things right for the resident. The repairs to the toilet and sink were still ongoing, and there was a pattern of poor communication and missed appointments, which continued after its stage 1 response. The landlord missed an opportunity to improve its practises. This further impacted the resident and diminished her confidence in the landlord’s ability to complete the repairs.
  3. At stage 2, the landlord did attempt to put things right. It apologised for the further delays and poor service. It identified an instance of poor communication and further staff training. It also acted to hold its contractors accountable. In recognition of the further delays it increased its compensation offer for repairs to £250. However, the redress offered did not go far enough to recognise the delays, the level of poor communication (numerous instances) or the extent of missed, rescheduled and cancelled appointments, which caused ongoing distress and inconvenience to the resident.
  4. The landlord raised a repair for the sink on 27 July 2023 and attended on 8 September 2023, 35 days later, where it identified that a part was needed. This was contrary to the timeframe on the landlord’s website for a non-emergency repair of 15 days. After its first attendance the repair was not carried out until 22 December 2023, this was a further 76 day delay.
  5. On 7 November 2023 the resident requested an update from the landlord over the phone, although at this time the landlord’s operative could not confirm if it had ordered the sink part or if it would bring it to the next appointment. While it is understandable that this repair would take longer than others, as a part was required, the landlord did not communicate with the resident about the delays to set expectations or to recognise the full extent of the delays in its complaint response. This was a missed opportunity to recognise it was not complying with its repair responsibilities and to advise how it would improve its response times moving forward.
  6. The resident also requested updates at least 3 times across November 2023 to December 2023 about the repairs. The landlord could not evidence that it responded to these requests or concerns raised by the resident. There was an ongoing lack of clarity around the repairs and the resident had to chase the landlord on several occasions to get answers. It was inappropriate of the landlord not to communicate regularly with the resident about the status of her repairs, especially given the largely unexplained delays.
  7. The landlord poorly managed appointments, and illustrated a lack of integrity and commitment. There were at least 5 instances across October to November of the landlord rearranging and cancelling appointments at late notice or showing up unprepared. On 26 October 2023 and 17 November 2023 the landlord’s operatives attended without the required part for the sink, despite it having said in its stage 1 response that it had received the part on 17 October 2023. The landlord has not supplied evidence of the reported missed appointments in respect of the radiator repair, however the landlord did not dispute that there were missed appointments for this repair. Given the above, it was unreasonable of the landlord not to give more recognition to the level of distress and inconvenience caused to the resident for the continual disturbance caused by its poor management of appointments.
  8. The resident reported the radiator was leaking on 5 August 2023, the repair was raised by the landlord on 28 September 2023 and the landlord attended on 4 October 2023. The repair was completed after 43 working days. This timeframe was again contrary to the landlord’s repairs timeframe for a non-emergency repair. The landlord generally referred to the delays in respect of the radiator in its complaint responses, although it did not recognise the impact the leaking radiator had on the resident. The resident said on 26 October 2023 that green gunk was leaking out damaging her wooden flooring and there was a hissing noise which was concerning her. This was a missed opportunity for the landlord to act proactively to implement temporary measures to prevent further damage.
  9. The resident raised concerns about a toilet leak on 6 June 2023. Across June 2023 to 5 October the landlord attended to the toilet at least 5 times. The response times of the landlord across these dates was reasonable and within 15 working days, in accordance with its repair responsibilities. The resident reported on 2 October 2023 that the noise issue continued and that she was getting leaks from the toilet, and raised that her floor was rotting from the toilet leak.
  10. From the evidence, the landlord did not address the rotting floor concern, and there were multiple attendances to a recurring cistern leak. While there were numerous repairs attended to by the landlord, the effectiveness of such have not been evidenced. The repeated appointments and damage to the flooring caused the resident further distress and inconvenience. While the landlord acted more proactively to attend repairs, it was unreasonable for it not to properly evidence its repairs and to not address the resident’s concerns about the damaged flooring.
  11. There were also delays to the repair of a stop cock (53 working days), the resident also raised concerns about the quality of workmanship of this repair. It was appropriate the landlord acknowledged the delays in the stopcock repair. While the standard of the works and reported issues following the repair were not raised under the formal complaint process and investigated by the landlord, we recommend that the landlord address these additional concerns.
  12. The Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the landlord followed the dispute resolution principle of putting things right, learning from the outcomes and resolving the resident’s complaint satisfactorily and fairly in the circumstances. In this case, the landlord did acknowledge some delay, its poor communication, missed appointments, and offered compensation in recognition of the impact to the resident.
  13. However, in sum, the landlord did not improve its communication, recognise the full extent of its failures, or alleviate the resident’s concerns. It also did not improve its appointment practises or adequately address the detriment to the resident. Additionally, it did not address the damage to the resident’s flooring or made an attempt to put things right. As such we find the compensation of £250 was not proportionate to the extent of the failures and the impact on the resident. There was maladministration for the landlord’s handling of repairs.
  14. We have considered our own remedies guidance (published on our website) in respect of compensation for distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s failures. We consider taking into account the overall significance of the impact caused to the resident, that these circumstances warrant a high level of compensation. As such an order has been made for compensation of a total of £450 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint a day after she raised it. This was in accordance with its complaints policy (which sets out 5 working days for acknowledgement). The landlord also produced its stage 1 complaint response on 17 October 2023, which was within a 10 working day timeframe in accordance with its complaints policy. The resident escalated the complaint to stage 2 on 7 November 2023, and the landlord acknowledged this 2 days later. These were reasonable complaint handling actions.
  2. The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 2 January 2024. This was 37 working days after the escalation request and was not in accordance with its policy timeframe of 20 working days. As such the response was 17 working days outside of the timelines prescribed by its policy. Although this delay was unreasonable, the landlord did act to put things right by acknowledging the delays and impact on the resident in its stage 2 response. The delay did not impact the overall repair handling, but did cause the resident inconvenience, where she had to chase the landlord for its response. Given this, it was appropriate for the landlord to offer £30 for the delay and the resident’s time and trouble in seeking a complaint response.
  3. Overall the landlord acknowledged where it had not met the prescribed timeframes in handling the complaint and sought to put things right. The amount offered was reasonable to reflect the delay and the impact this delay had on the resident. Given these factors, we find there was reasonable redress offered for this complaint handling failure.

 

 

 

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of repairs to the sink, toilet and radiator.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was reasonable redress by the landlord in respect of its handling of the complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the Ombudsman orders the landlord to:
    1. Provide a written apology to the resident for the failures identified in this report.
    2. Pay directly to the resident a total of £450 (minus any sums previously paid) made up of:
      1. £250 the landlord has already offered during its complaints process for delays, poor communication and missed appointments (if not paid already).
      2. Additional £200 for the distress and worry and time and trouble caused to the resident by its failings in handling the repairs to the sink, toilet and radiator.
    3. Contact the resident and discuss the damage to the flooring from the toilet leak and the radiator leak.
  2. The Ombudsman orders the landlord to confirm compliance with the above orders within 4 weeks.

Recommendations

  1. We recommend the landlord to pay the resident £30 offered during its complaints process for complaint handling failures (if not paid already).
  2. We recommend the landlord contact the resident to ensure that the resulting damage to the wall from the stop cock repair has been addressed.